The lowest cost way to take close up pictures is to use a set of close up diopter filters on your lens, such as the four pictured in figure 3.

Figure 3 – A set of close up diopter filters for macro shooting on a budget

These filters cost only a few bucks online and do a reasonably good job with making extreme close ups. I bought a package of four filters with diopters (magnification factor) running from + 1 to +10 (figure 3).

These filters simply screw into the front of your prime lens (or zoom lens) and add magnification to the lens. It is sort of the same principle as using a magnifying glass. You screw the filter onto the front of the lens and it magnifies the close-up subject. There are different diopter “powers” in the filter set so that you can increase or decrease the magnification. The main limitation of diopter close-up filters is a very limited amount of focus control and somewhat lower quality images. They are not as convenient to use by any means, in comparison to a true macro lens. However, they do a pretty good job on taking extreme close up pictures and are much lower in cost.

Figure 4 – Same subject as in figure 2 shot with diopter close up filters

With a diopter filter on your lens it cannot focus sharply on anything farther away than a few inches; therefore, the filter cannot be left on a lens for any other purpose than shooting the macro shots. While these filters can’t possibly give you the same quality edge to edge as a true macro lens (figure 2.30), they do provide the photographer on a budget with a way to make interesting close up pictures without spending a lot of money. Look on the back of your lens’s cap to see the correct size of filter to buy. The filters must match the screw-in filter size of the lens you will use them with.

23 comments

Thanks for the article. I've been using extension tubes for years with good to better-than-average results. They're a little more sophisticated than just hollow tubes, in that they have the electronic connections to allow auto-focus; a big help. But yes, they are a little clunky. When I really get good at macro, a dedicated lens makes sense.

Darrell thank you for writing this. I have a bellows that I used with my old nikon film camera, but it will not hook up to my D7000. I was thinking of buying a single extension tube, attach that to the 7000 and then attaching the bellows.to the tube. Any other ideas? Again thanks for the article.

Since a big part of my subject matter is product shots, when I bought my D7000, the lens I bought with it was the 60mm Micro G. Ouch. The list price was $600. The sales guy told me that, bought together, Nikon allowed a $50 discount on the lens. OK.
The price pain was lessened a bit further knowing that the lens would do double duty. I regularly use if for portrait shots. On a DX body, it gives me a 90mm FOV, which is my favorite length for portrait.
If you go to Nikon's website and view the brochure for the D3s camera, almost all the shots in it were taken with the 60mm f2.8 G ED. Remarkable contrast & resolution. And Nano coating on top of that! :-)

Hi DArrel,
Great post. I enjoy macro photography, but have never used anything in-front or behind my macro lenses. I have been thinking about using tubes but, my concern is that auto focus will be hard to control on moving subjects, such as bees going from flower to flower.
Do you know if tubes affect auto focus performance?

I wish to add that close-up photography is considered further than 1:1 (many zooms offering 1:2 ratio is close-up lens) ratio and real macro is closer to the subject than 1:1.
Choice of macro lens should depend on what you are planning to shoot, if it is insect, over 100mm is a minimum.

I would like to be able to photograph snowflakes and once saw an article about the use of Canon's MP-E 65 mm macro lens to do so. This lense allows the user from 1 to 5 times life size, but cannot be used on a Nikon. Does anyone know how I could achieve something equivalent to this, perhaps with a bellows, or extension tubes? I have a 105 mm Nikkor macro lens, as well as a 40 mm macro, also by Nikon.

Edward,
For an inexpensive lens the Nikkor 40mm micro is a great lens. It even works well for a normal, walk-around lens. I would prefer it in some cases over the 50mm f/1.8 for general use, with the added benefit of 1:1 macro.
The only drawback is that you must get fairly close to the subject with the 40mm, which might scare some skittish insect subjects. Other than that, the 40mm is a great, low-cost macro lens.

Great article since I've been needing to figure out some better ways of taking pictures of the opal I've been cutting. I'm using a a 55mm Nikkor 1:2.8 but the problem is I'm using a D90 which requires me to go full manual. I've seen this lens selling for some pretty big bucks, so I'm wondering if I should hold onto the lens for when I upgrade my camera to one that will allow full use of non-CPU lenses or sell it and buy a new Micro CPU lens. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

The two element achromatic ( 1+,2+,3+) screw on close-up adapters made by Nikon , Canon, maybe some others produce a much sharper close up image than the cheaper one element adapters. The two element adapters are really small lenses, cost more and are well worth it. Regarding Macro lenses: longer focal length (90,105 mm etc.)give the photographer greater working distance to the subject, while also offering flat-field closeup performance.

It seems to me newer G lenses would pose problems with the bellows, as you cannot set the Fstop. Kenko tubes allow for full use of the camera controls. I would appreciate more detail and guidance on using a bellows with either a G or AIS lens. Thanks for writing this up!